Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    People reject the nonsense you call "evolution" because, um, it's nonsense.

    Since whales have no hands, whales have no fingers. See, fingers are parts of hands, and flippers are not hands. Since flippers are not hands, flippers have no fingers. Since flippers have no fingers, the bones component to flippers are not finger bones.

    The question is, why do you play make-believe that whales have fingers in their flippers?




    Why beware the jubjub bird?
    Why shun the frumious bandersnatch?

    Show us a video of a fossil whale swimming around, please.

    Show us a video of a fossil whale tying on his shoes with his fingers.
    Exactly. They've had their hands held through this numerous times, but they keep asking the same questions.

    It's like they aren't listening.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Why do fossil whales have hind legs?
      Is the phrase, "fossil whale", a standard piece of jargon for Darwinists, or did you invent it? In any case, what (if anything) would you call a "fossil whale"?
      And what, if anything, would you say is the difference between a whale fossil--fossilized remains of a whale--and whatever it is you'd call a "fossil whale"?

      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
      I like this quote. It's an admission that the nonsense Darwinists call "evolution" is not biology--that is, is not science--but is, instead, something else. You're telling us that nothing in the science of biology makes sense except "in the light of" nonsense--the nonsense you call "evolution".
      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

      MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Exactly. They've had their hands held through this numerous times, but they keep asking the same questions.

        It's like they aren't listening.
        You bet they aren't! Vandals and huns (in a word, BARBARIANS) bent on destroying Judeo-Christian, Western civilization aren't in the mood for, nor habit of, listening to reason.
        What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

        MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
          Many animals have become extinct because of changes in climate and humankind.
          Actually, it was a pun. Forgot my WFTH-I. Sorry.

          Unfortunately, many animals ar facing extinction today. Also that does not convince me of human evolution.
          Well, that's sensible. The evidence for human evolution is in genetics, fossil record, biochemistry, anatomy, and embryology, among others.

          "generally considered" is theory.
          No. That's not theory. In science, there's a very specific definition for "theory", and it takes more than "generally considered" to qualify as a theory. Theories are stronger than scientific laws.
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            Namecalling a well supported idea as "nonsense" doesn't actually further the discussion.

            Calling nonsense "a well supported idea" doesn't actually further the discussion.
            What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

            MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

            Comment


            • It's funny how Darwinists invented a bogus law to elevate their religion.

              Fake law: "Theories are stronger than scientific laws."

              Theory: Darwinists are morons.

              I win.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                It's funny how Darwinists invented a bogus law to elevate their religion.

                Fake law: "Theories are stronger than scientific laws."

                Theory: Darwinists are morons.

                I win.
                Come on, that's post of the year material right there. Where's the love?
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Actually, it was a pun. Forgot my WFTH-I. Sorry.



                  Well, that's sensible. The evidence for human evolution is in genetics, fossil record, biochemistry, anatomy, and embryology, among others.



                  No. That's not theory. In science, there's a very specific definition for "theory", and it takes more than "generally considered" to qualify as a theory. Theories are stronger than scientific laws.
                  "A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something. ... The word 'theory' has several meanings: a guess or speculation."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
                    "A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something.

                    A scientific theory is an idea or a group of ideas about nature that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. There are informal uses of "theory" outside of science, but of course they don't mean anything at all in science.


                    ... The word 'theory' has several meanings: a guess or speculation."
                    That definition would be closer to "hypothesis." Hypotheses are testable, but unverified ideas about natural phenomena.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      A scientific theory is an idea or a group of ideas about nature that have been repeatedly verified by evidence.
                      Nope. Theories can only ever be falsified. They can never be verified. The closest you can get is to say one has not yet been falsified.

                      Your consistent anti-science expressions expose your ultimate commitment to your religion: Darwinism.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Not blustering.

                        Step one we begin with a eukaryotic cell. Such cells begin to stick together in colonies. There are a handful of cell surface proteins that can do this.

                        Step 2. Some of the stuck together cells begin to specialize - this is the beginning of an organism rather than a collection of cells.
                        "Cut a hydra in two, and you will end up with two hydras. Cut it into 20 pieces and you will have 20 hydras. Turn the hydra inside-out, and it will recover. Scientists have even blended hydras down to their cellular components, spun them in a centrifuge so they pack together, and watched as the cells sort themselves back into hydra."

                        Hydra: Stretchy, Speedy, & Probably Immortal

                        Comment


                        • Yay. User name is back with his Google searches.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            I am a biology professor so science communication is a big part of my job. I'm always looking to hone my skills though.
                            I know you are and a bit of a cuckoo too, my guess? What are you trying to do? Biologise us into changing our beliefs? As long as you realise you are a bit of a oddball here?
                            So, what?

                            believe it!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                              Calling nonsense "a well supported idea" doesn't actually further the discussion.
                              When the American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it "a well supported idea" and some random person on the internet calls it nonsense. I think I'm going to go with the AAAS.


                              The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education.

                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                When the American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it "a well supported idea" and some random person on the internet calls it nonsense. I think I'm going to go with the AAAS.


                                The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education.
                                Would you say that one could not understand most of the field of biology without having the "contemporary theory of biological evolution" as the foundation for one's education?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X